sdfghswe

This is also the reason why I avoid using analogies when making an argument. Usually, instead of talking about the argument itself we end up discussing under what circumstances the analogy works and when it doesn't.

What are you reading at the moment?

When I was a younger developer I thought tooling solved all problems. As I grew more experience I slowly changed my mind that some problem spaces require not only tooling but process change.

Lets take it one step further.

You start out thinking everything is tooling. As you grow more experienced you realize that everything is process. As you grow more experienced still, you realize that the world is really messy and rarely ever anything is everything.

You mean those fleets that Musk claimed would have a 100% yield?

If they fire him, that will tank the value of the snake oil.

He posted an apology because he failed. If he had succeeded we would've said "it was very difficult but it was the right thing to do"

HN loves telling everyone how HN is just for high quality content...

... unless people from SV are involved, in which case HN is flooded with gossip and drama.

Isn't ego the enemy of growth or whatever? Projection...

I would event go as far as say that the main reason behind the tweet is not to show regret, but to plant the idea that he didn't orchestrate but only participate.

Pay me tickets to watch my ads. I want a business like that.

How is it even supposed to make money, now that you mention it?

Whole foods

In that phrase when I said "you" I didn't mean the person I was responding to. I mean the "general you" - a hypothetical person. I didn't occur to me it could be interpreted differently. I've edited it.

tekla 10 minutes ago https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=tekla

Only on HN will you see a recounting of a massive achievement of humankind dismissed offhandedly like this.

I'm not dismissing an achievement of humankind. I'm dismissing the PR piece they put out about it.

Do you struggle to see the distinction?

I found it very not worth watching. It seemed just Deepmind PR. Very little substance, it was just soap opera grade material.

If a person likes soap operas, they could enjoy the movie.

I work in a domain where performance is very important, and I'm surprised that such a simple heuristic can be so good.

Him and his colleague Charles Munger fawn over China exactly as the grandparent post said

I've noticed the same thing. At least since the BYD investment they do.

And it's not just not criticizing, some times they actually praise him. For example, I remember an interview where Charlie Munger was asked what he thought about bitcoin (he hates it) and he went out of his way to say that Xi Jinping was much smarter than American leadership in banning it.

Now I agree it should be banned, but could he not have made such point without bringing Xi Jinping into it? It was really weird.

That was amazing, thank you.

When I get tripped up on jargon such as "transformer" or "smart contracts" or anything Marc Andreessen blogs, Kyle is my Google Translate for tech speak.

These people are hype merchants.

ELI5 please?

I'm in the UK, I don't know anyone that doesn't have WhatsApp.

*American teenagers.

I believe that I could, but I never did. So I have faith that the people who say they did are telling the truth. Best I've actually done is evaluate their credibility.

The intro did strike me as pretty questionable though:

> For the great majority of people, believing in the truths of science is unavoidably an act of faith.

I largely agree with the statement you quote.

I have a PhD in physics; I understand science well. I believe that man went to the moon. I understand one of the proofs - they left a reflector which you can aim at with a laser.

But.... I've never pointed at laser at it myself. I would probably struggle to obtain such a laser and would definitely struggle to aim it and detect the reflection (by reading up on engineering I probably could do it if I dedicated to it very significant effort). So, on what basis do I hold this belief?

The truthful answer is that I believe I'm good at evaluating other more indirect sources of information. For example, if a scientist claims that they have such a laser and made the measurement, I believe I am knowledgeable enough to read their publication and spot a large class of inconsistencies that could expose their frauds. But.... I haven't even done that. And this is me, who (probably) has the intellectual tools to explore these questions. Imagine someone who doesn't even understand the scientific process.

EDIT: I'm now reading the article and I see that they've made the same points already much better.

I believe what's holding google back isn't lack of cash, but lack of innovation. It's full to the brim with highly paid engineers that aren't really invested in change.

Maybe stupid question, but.....

Would/could this be seen from google's financial statements? My naive understanding is that if the answer is no, then google must've made a conscious effort in financial engineering to hide it.

I believe there's been life on earth for at least 4 billion years.

An estimated 1 in 4 end up incarcerated.

Shocking.

Don't rebase ESPECIALLY stuff that people are collaborating on.

Ok that's very reasonable in abstract, but how do you define what "most needed" means?